Should Rutgers get a shot at the BCS National Championship - Page 3

marc · 11-13-2006, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prodigal Son

I don't need a computer to tell me that Rutgers hasn't played any top-tier teams. The computer formula isn't the be-all, end-all perfect measurement of schedule strength.

The SOS system is flawed. It weighs records heavily but there's no way to measure a team that plays in the SEC vs a team that plays in the Big East. A 6-5 SEC team is usually better than a 6-5 Big East team.

bababui · 11-13-2006, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marc

There would still be 3, 4, 5 loss teams getting in over 1 loss teams.

Ideally I would prefer a 16 team playoff but would the Uni Presidents go for it?

marc · 11-13-2006, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bababui

Ideally I would prefer a 16 team playoff but would the Uni Presidents go for it?

Ugh, 16 teams would be horrible. You can't have 3rd place 3 loss teams competing for National Championships.

4 would be ideal, 8 max.

I hope if they ever go to a playoff (which I don't see happening for a while) that it's a reasonable # of teams that will all have a legit arguement to be competing for a championship.

bababui · 11-13-2006, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marc

Ugh, 16 teams would be horrible. You can't have 3rd place 3 loss teams competing for National Championships.

4 would be ideal, 8 max.

I hope if they ever go to a playoff (which I don't see happening for a while) that it's a reasonable # of teams that will all have a legit arguement to be competing for a championship.

Should the basketball tourney go back to 16 or even 8 teams then?

marc · 11-13-2006, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bababui

Should the basketball tourney go back to 16 or even 8 teams then?

I wouldn't have a problem with the ncaa field shrinking a little bit.

Regardless they are not comparable. Basketball is different than football, lesser basketball teams can compete with more regularity than in football.

What makes college football special is that EVERY game is huge, comparing it to college basketball is silly, they are totally different.

BrentBlades · 11-13-2006, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prodigal Son

I don't need a computer to tell me that Rutgers hasn't played any top-tier teams. The computer formula isn't the be-all, end-all perfect measurement of schedule strength.

I don't disagree with you at all about that, however 99 times out of a 100 I'll respect the SOS figures that the NCAA, who actually keeps track of it from week to week, over someone who just has an opinion based on the five games he's watched every week.

bababui · 11-13-2006, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marc

I wouldn't have a problem with the ncaa field shrinking a little bit.

Regardless they are not comparable. Basketball is different than football, lesser basketball teams can compete with more regularity than in football.

What makes college football special is that EVERY game is huge, comparing it to college basketball is silly, they are totally different.

We are talking about the National Championship. If a 16 game playoff is too big for NCAA football then why shouldnt it be too big for basketball since the conferences are about the same??

Erik W. · 11-13-2006, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Why not just make it a popularity contest like American Idol?

That's how it is right now, which is the problem.

marc · 11-13-2006, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bababui

We are talking about the National Championship. If a 16 game playoff is too big for NCAA football then why shouldnt it be too big for basketball since the conferences are about the same??

If you can't grasp the difference between basketball and football then there's no point arguing this with you. Not all sports need to follow the same format, the current format is great for NCAA Basketball but would be horrible for football.

bababui · 11-13-2006, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marc

If you can't grasp the difference between basketball and football then there's no point arguing this with you. Not all sports need to follow the same format, the current format is great for NCAA Basketball but would be horrible for football.

Im arguing the theory behind the format. Why is it wrong to have a 3 loss team play for a football championship but a 10 loss team play for a basketball championship?

marc · 11-13-2006, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bababui

Im arguing the theory behind the format. Why is it wrong to have a 3 loss team play for a football championship but a 10 loss team play for a basketball championship?

Exactly, you're not grasping the difference between basketball and football. A lesser basketball team is much more likely to compete with a top notch basketball team than a lesser football team is to compete with a top notch football team. Basketball, Hockey, and baseball are different than football. The lesser team wins all the time, so a big tournament is acceptable for basketball.

In football the best team almost always wins, it's not as common for big upsets.

CBL-Commish · 11-13-2006, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marc

Ugh, 16 teams would be horrible. You can't have 3rd place 3 loss teams competing for National Championships.

4 would be ideal, 8 max.

I hope if they ever go to a playoff (which I don't see happening for a while) that it's a reasonable # of teams that will all have a legit arguement to be competing for a championship.

Isn't "reasonable" completely subjective? Isn't the difference between the 6th- and 10th-best teams just as ridiculous as the difference between the 14th and 17th? If you're going to make room for teams with bad schedules who go 11-0, shouldn't you also make room for teams with very difficult schedules who have two or three losses? If not, why not? There are very good arguments to be made that a two-loss team from the SEC might be every bit as good as an undefeated from a lesser conference.

What this all comes down to is that football places a sanctity on a sample size of one, when it doesn't deserve that. Every game is treated as a black and white, true/false test of which team is better (completely ignoring circumstances and context) when in reality that was just one day where one team beat another. And despite what's been said here there are huge upsets every week - the best team most certainly doesn't always win.

The BCS is far from perfect, especially since the human polls, the most flawed part of the system, are now the biggest part of the system. But it's at least an effort to give the championship to the team that had the best season. With a playoff it's almost a certainty that #4 or #8 or #14 team crowned the champion within a few years of it being instituted. Almost 100% guarantee that a team that wouldn't have even been considered in the past 100 years of college football will be the champ in a playoff.

In a sport where you crown a champion from a pool of teams that couldn't possibly play everyone else in the pool, and certainly not a statistically significant number of times, you have to make compromises. I'd be happy if they only used computer polls. It would more objectively, realistically decide which team was best than either what we have today or with a playoff.

Tribe Fan 24 · 11-13-2006, 10:17 AM

I may just be simple minded, but I just don't think that you can just look at the strength of schedule numbers and say that it "proves" that the Big East is on par with the SEC, Big 10, Pac 10, or Big 12. What I am going to say is PURELY my opinion.

I think that if you drop a Florida, LSU, Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Cal, Texas, Oklahoma into the Big East and play a Big East schedule, every one of those teams would be (probably) undefeated to this point also. (I am not considering non-conference games.)

I think that there is something to be said for having strong teams in your conference year after year. Rutgers has really only been good for a season or two. Louisville and WVa have been pretty good for several years now, but I do not think of them in the same class as teams that are loaded pretty much every year. The Floridas, LSUs, Tennessees, Ohio States, Michigans, USCs, Texas, Oklahomas of the world do it every year. There are occasional dips from year to year, but mostly they are the strongest teams in their conferences every year.

I conversely think that if you take a Rutgers, Louisville, or WVa and drop them into the SEC or Big 10, Pac 10, or Big 12, and play one of those conferences schedules, they would NOT be undefeated. I think that I just cant see a Rutgers (or a Louisville or WVa) going into LSU, Florida, Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Cal, Texas, Oklahoma and winning. I think that they might be competitive, but would lose more often than not. I think that the middle to bottom of the SEC and Big 10 is much stronger than the middle to bottom of the Big East. After this weekend, the same could be said for the Big 12 also.

I intend no disrespect to Rutgers/Louisville/WVa and their accomplishments. They have had great seasons and I applaud them for that. I just think that if they played in a more powerful football conference, we probably would not be having this conversation. I do not consider the Big East as a football power conference at this point. I also recognize that this is purely my opinion. I intend no malice or disrespect towards anyone.

I think that a winner take all playoff has been needed for several years in D1 college football. I think that this computer poll, convaluted BCS mumbo-jumbo is for the birds. We can sit here and hash and re-hash, but we need to play it on the field. That is the only way to really decide anything.

My 2 Pennies,

Kevin

JDOldSchool · 11-13-2006, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bababui

We are talking about the National Championship. If a 16 game playoff is too big for NCAA football then why shouldnt it be too big for basketball since the conferences are about the same??

Because I'd bet my life that a #16 seed would never ever ever ever ever ever in anybody here's lifetime, the lifetime of the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren EVER win the National Championship. Ever. Not once. In the next 200 years, if they keep the format the same, a 16 seed will not win the entire thing.

Plus, basketball lends itself to more games. Football doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

What this all comes down to is that football places a sanctity on a sample size of one

I think, more accurately, football can't really be much more than a sample size of one based on the nature of the sport.

JDOldSchool · 11-13-2006, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marc

No, I'd prefer that people who actually sit and watch the games do it. The polls have also become a joke.

That right there is why someone like you, despite your OSU bias (

), would be a better person voting in these polls than half the people who actually have a vote. People here might disagree with your opinions on something, but at least you watch the games and can see who's done what.

jaxmagicman · 11-13-2006, 10:55 AM

I am all for the NCAA only allowing conference champs to play in the tournament.

yankeesrule · 11-13-2006, 10:59 AM

If we(rutgers) go undefeated, I see no reason why we should not get into the National Championship game. Do I think we will go down to WVA and come out with the win? Not sure but I definately think its more likely following our big W of louisville after we shut down their vaunted O during the second half. I also think that we can hang with most big teams out there right now, based on how are D has been playing and our running game. We have one of the best backfields in the nation with Ray Rice and Brian Leonard, a passing game that is starting to click with some consistency, and a D that can get in any Q's face and throw off his timing.

Why is it that everyone loves to knock Rutgers OOC, yet no one seems to notice that the beloved Notre Dame has only beaten one team that is currently ranked(G-Tech) and was blown off the field against their other ranked opponent(Michigan, at the Dome none the less), yet they get far more love than we do for the simple fact that the are NOTRE FREAKING DAME.

The Big East this season would be 3rd or 4th behind the "power" conferences", easily ahead of the ACC and bunched up with the Pac 10 and Big 12. The Pac 10, after USC and Cal does not have much going for it this year.

The bottom line is, IF we go undefeated we should be in the championship game. IF we go undefeated and dont get into the NC game, it will be IMO a bigger hit to the BCS system and proof that a playoff is needed than in years past when there were 3 undefeateds and 1 did not make it. Its not like we are in a mid-major conference, the big east is BCS conference and therefore its winner, if 1 of only 2 undefeated BCS teams, should be playing for the National Championship.

If, rather than being Rutgers University, you put the name of even a Michigan State/Penn State/Oregon and gave them our same results would we be having this same discussion. Or is it simply because we are Rutgers and few outside of the tri-state area knows who we are that we are being thought of as a joke mid-major undefeated?

As well, if we are able to beat WVA we will have beaten by that point 2 top 10 teams(probably more like 1 top 10, 1 top 15 because WVA will drop out of top 10) which is as many as any other "powerhouse" team will have.

Chappy · 11-13-2006, 10:59 AM

I hope Rutgers wins out, but is left out of the title game.

I hope the Big Eleven winner loses the 'National Championship' game.

I hope Rutgers kicks somebody's arse in their BCS Bowl Game.

I hope there will be a split championship.

And, I hope that the fallout will lead to a small playoff in the near future. Of course, I know better. I know that it will never happen. I know that the controversy surrounding the lack of a true champion keeps people talking about college football, and the fat cats like it that way.

marc · 11-13-2006, 11:02 AM

Am I the only one that thinks that there really is going to be a true champion this year?

I'm not sure why so many people are going nuts, if OSU or Michigan win it all I'm not sure how anyone could argue against them being the true champion.

The same thing goes for anyone who beats either of those teams in a neutral field.

jaxmagicman · 11-13-2006, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marc

Am I the only one that thinks that there really is going to be a true champion this year?

I'm not sure why so many people are going nuts, if OSU or Michigan win it all I'm not sure how anyone could argue against them being the true champion.

The same thing goes for anyone who beats either of those teams in a neutral field.

Unless of course Michigan beats Ohio State and then Arkansas beats Michigan in the title game and Rutgers stays undefeated. You might see a split championship with Rutgers taking the USC Championship Route and Arkansas taking the BCS>

View Poll Results: Should Rutgers get a shot at the BCS title game?
Yes	28	42.42%
No	21	31.82%
Maybe	17	25.76%
Voters: 66. You may not vote on this poll

11-13-2006, 10:17 AM	#53
Tribe Fan 24 All Star Reserve Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Maryville, TN Posts: 675	I may just be simple minded, but I just don't think that you can just look at the strength of schedule numbers and say that it "proves" that the Big East is on par with the SEC, Big 10, Pac 10, or Big 12. What I am going to say is PURELY my opinion. I think that if you drop a Florida, LSU, Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Cal, Texas, Oklahoma into the Big East and play a Big East schedule, every one of those teams would be (probably) undefeated to this point also. (I am not considering non-conference games.) I think that there is something to be said for having strong teams in your conference year after year. Rutgers has really only been good for a season or two. Louisville and WVa have been pretty good for several years now, but I do not think of them in the same class as teams that are loaded pretty much every year. The Floridas, LSUs, Tennessees, Ohio States, Michigans, USCs, Texas, Oklahomas of the world do it every year. There are occasional dips from year to year, but mostly they are the strongest teams in their conferences every year. I conversely think that if you take a Rutgers, Louisville, or WVa and drop them into the SEC or Big 10, Pac 10, or Big 12, and play one of those conferences schedules, they would NOT be undefeated. I think that I just cant see a Rutgers (or a Louisville or WVa) going into LSU, Florida, Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Cal, Texas, Oklahoma and winning. I think that they might be competitive, but would lose more often than not. I think that the middle to bottom of the SEC and Big 10 is much stronger than the middle to bottom of the Big East. After this weekend, the same could be said for the Big 12 also. I intend no disrespect to Rutgers/Louisville/WVa and their accomplishments. They have had great seasons and I applaud them for that. I just think that if they played in a more powerful football conference, we probably would not be having this conversation. I do not consider the Big East as a football power conference at this point. I also recognize that this is purely my opinion. I intend no malice or disrespect towards anyone. I think that a winner take all playoff has been needed for several years in D1 college football. I think that this computer poll, convaluted BCS mumbo-jumbo is for the birds. We can sit here and hash and re-hash, but we need to play it on the field. That is the only way to really decide anything. My 2 Pennies, Kevin __________________ Long Suffering Tribe Fan Proud Papa of Caroline Grace (b. 2005) Kaeden Michael (b. 2008) and Claire Elise (b. 2012)

11-13-2006, 10:55 AM	#56
jaxmagicman Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Retired defloration-maker living in Myrtle Beach, SC Posts: 7,801	I am all for the NCAA only allowing conference champs to play in the tournament. __________________ See ID Major League Baseball trademarks and copyrights are used with permission of MLB Advanced Media, L.P. Minor League Baseball trademarks and copyrights are used with the permission of Minor League Baseball. All rights reserved.

11-13-2006, 10:59 AM	#58
Chappy Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 2,721	I hope Rutgers wins out, but is left out of the title game. I hope the Big Eleven winner loses the 'National Championship' game. I hope Rutgers kicks somebody's arse in their BCS Bowl Game. I hope there will be a split championship. And, I hope that the fallout will lead to a small playoff in the near future. Of course, I know better. I know that it will never happen. I know that the controversy surrounding the lack of a true champion keeps people talking about college football, and the fat cats like it that way. __________________ NPBL - Pennsylvania Freedom AFBL - North Carolina Aviators MLB-Pro - Kansas City Royals

11-13-2006, 11:02 AM	#59
marc Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 7,505	Am I the only one that thinks that there really is going to be a true champion this year? I'm not sure why so many people are going nuts, if OSU or Michigan win it all I'm not sure how anyone could argue against them being the true champion. The same thing goes for anyone who beats either of those teams in a neutral field. __________________

11-13-2006, 10:59 AM	#57
yankeesrule All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,367	If we(rutgers) go undefeated, I see no reason why we should not get into the National Championship game. Do I think we will go down to WVA and come out with the win? Not sure but I definately think its more likely following our big W of louisville after we shut down their vaunted O during the second half. I also think that we can hang with most big teams out there right now, based on how are D has been playing and our running game. We have one of the best backfields in the nation with Ray Rice and Brian Leonard, a passing game that is starting to click with some consistency, and a D that can get in any Q's face and throw off his timing. Why is it that everyone loves to knock Rutgers OOC, yet no one seems to notice that the beloved Notre Dame has only beaten one team that is currently ranked(G-Tech) and was blown off the field against their other ranked opponent(Michigan, at the Dome none the less), yet they get far more love than we do for the simple fact that the are NOTRE FREAKING DAME. The Big East this season would be 3rd or 4th behind the "power" conferences", easily ahead of the ACC and bunched up with the Pac 10 and Big 12. The Pac 10, after USC and Cal does not have much going for it this year. The bottom line is, IF we go undefeated we should be in the championship game. IF we go undefeated and dont get into the NC game, it will be IMO a bigger hit to the BCS system and proof that a playoff is needed than in years past when there were 3 undefeateds and 1 did not make it. Its not like we are in a mid-major conference, the big east is BCS conference and therefore its winner, if 1 of only 2 undefeated BCS teams, should be playing for the National Championship. If, rather than being Rutgers University, you put the name of even a Michigan State/Penn State/Oregon and gave them our same results would we be having this same discussion. Or is it simply because we are Rutgers and few outside of the tri-state area knows who we are that we are being thought of as a joke mid-major undefeated? As well, if we are able to beat WVA we will have beaten by that point 2 top 10 teams(probably more like 1 top 10, 1 top 15 because WVA will drop out of top 10) which is as many as any other "powerhouse" team will have.